Onemata Corporation v. Rahman

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:20-cv-62002-WPD ONEMATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, v.

ASHFAQ RAHMAN and SABIRA AREFIN,

Defendants. vs.

WILLIAM SMITH and ENSCICON ACQUISITIONS II, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon (1) the Moving Parties’ Motions to Dismiss Notices to Appear and Proceedings Supplementary [DE’s 621, 649]; (ii) The Rahman Arefin Living Trust’s Amended and Restated Motion to Dismiss Proceedings Supplementary and Notice to Appear [DE 624] (together, the “Motions to Dismiss the Notices to Appear”); (iii) the Moving Parties’ Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement [DE 673] (the “Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint”) (collectively, the “Motions”)1, and the August 28, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle [DE 714] (the “Report”). As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate

1 The “Moving Parties” in the Motions to Dismiss the Notices to Appear are: (i) MaskGene, LLC, Peacenheaven, LLC, Lakemont Property, LLC, BashaBari, LLC, Sunshine Irrevocable Trust, Paradise Valley Irrevocable Trust, and Bright Stars Irrevocable Trust, each alleged to be a Nevada LLC or a Nevada irrevocable trust; and (ii) CSB Holdings and HomeLien Investment LLC, aka Trident Trust (Nevis) (“HomeLien LLC”), Ora Partners Wealth Solutions, and HomeLien Investment LTD (hereinafter, collectively the “Third Parties”). Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 714] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 714] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 714] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED. 2. The Moving Parties’ Motions to Dismiss Notices to Appear and Proceedings Supplementary [DE’s 621, 649] are DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Rahman Arefin Living Trust’s Amended and Restated Motion to Dismiss Proceedings Supplementary and Notice to Appear [DE 624] is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. The Third Parties’ request for a scheduling order to set discovery and all other deadlines to govern these proceedings supplementary (see DE 621 at 10; 624 at 15; 649 at 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 5. The Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint [DE 673] is GRANTED, with leave to amend to cure the pleading deficiencies as described in the Report [DE 714]. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 5th day of September, 2024. j f / a j; Df cbf. □ ii As j if fas ae? □ 4 KA AYA AYA NE EGC VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS Copies furnished to: United States District Judge Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle